The 2012 class was a banner year for quarterbacks. It looked great a year ago and lived up to the billing after the class' first season in the NFL. So this comparison features a class with an A grade versus a class with a D grade. Thus, it is rather ugly for the 2013 group.

If you were to take Geno Smith and include him in last year's class, I would place him behind Tannehill and above Weeden. Smith is pretty comparable as a prospect to Tannehill.

If Glennon were in the 2012 class, he would be behind Osweiler. Barkley, Tyler Wilson, Manuel, Bray and Nassib would all fit in the third- to fourth-round region where Russell Wilson and Cousins were selected in a more talented draft class.

Safest Pick: Geno Smith, West Virginia
Overall, Smith has the best skill set of any quarterback in the 2013 NFL Draft. He has the least amount of flaws with his physical makeup. Smith does everything well while being the most accurate passer in this year's draft. He may not turn into one of the elite quarterbacks in the NFL, but he is the most likely prospect in this class to develop into a quality starter.
Biggest Bust potential: Mike Glennon, N.C. State
Glennon could be a boom pick if he goes to a team that develops him well. However, Glennon is clearly a work in progress. He has great size and a powerful arm, but plenty of first-round busts have had those characteristics. Many quarterbacks busts have had flaws of accuracy and ball security. Those are two weak points for Glennon, and if he doesn't turn them around, he won't work out in the NFL.

Recap: The most important characteristic for any quarterback in the NFL is accuracy. Not only do accurate quarterbacks reduce turnovers and maintain time of possession, they increase the opportunities for skill-position players to have a bigger impact. Smith is definitely the most accurate signal-caller in the 2013 NFL Draft.

Smith's accuracy can be seen in his 71 percent completion percentage as a senior, even better than his 65 percent completion rate in 2011. College percentages are inflated, but Smith has superb ball placement and does a good job of throwing the ball in tight windows in all parts of the field.

Wilson, Barkley and Nassib are all accurate passers. They are of the West Coast variety that work the short to intermediate part of the field. All three of them should have the potential of completing 60 percent of their passes in the NFL.

Jones flashes great accuracy at times and then gets in streaks where he struggles. Dysert looked like that at the Senior Bowl. Manuel had a good completion percentage in college, but coaches told WalterFootball.com those numbers were inflated by his offense and weak competition. Those sources believe Manuel needs to improve his accuracy significantly to have shot at being an NFL starter.

Glennon completed 58.5 percent of his passes in 2012. He can make some beautiful throws deep along the sideline and drop the ball in precisely down the field, but too often he is off the mark. Glennon needs to improve his footwork to become a more accurate quarterback. His feet are out rhythm too often and that prevents him from getting passes where they need to be. His inaccuracy also led to a lot of interceptions, 29, over the past two seasons.

Recap: Glennon has the strongest arm of the class and can clearly spin the ball better than the others. Manuel also has a cannon for an arm to make all the throws at every level of the field. Smith, Dysert and Jones all have good arms that are capable of making all the throws required in the NFL.

Nassib and Barkley have decent arms, but they don't have the ability to spin it like the other signal-callers. Neither can beat defensive backs solely with the strength of his arm. They need good anticipation, timing and ball location on throws downfield.

Wilson did well in the short to intermediate part of the field at the Senior Bowl. However his arm doesn't look capable of driving the ball in the deep part of the field in the NFL.

Recap: Smith is advanced at reading defenses and working through his progressions. He doesn't panic when his first read is covered and generally stays patient in the pocket.

Barkley and Wilson both have been well-prepared with their college offenses. Both signal-callers do a good job of working through their options and are able to move their eyes quickly.

Glennon shows potential for good field vision, but is too inconsistent. Jones is the same way.

Dysert needs work on speeding up his progressions for the NFL. Manuel needs a lot of improvement. He showed progress at the Senior Bowl, but he would usually take off and run in college when his first option was covered.

Recap: This was a tough one; Smith, Nassib, Wilson and Barkley were all pretty comparable. Smith won out because he threw the ball in the least amount of dangerous places and avoided interceptions. Nassib threw only 10 interceptions as a senior and was very reliable with his decision-making for Syracuse. Barkley would've been ranked first in decision-making last yeat, but he regressed as a senior and was forcing passes to covered receivers. Thus, his interceptions went up. Wilson had a senior-year regression as well.

Manuel's decision-making struggled whenever he faced a good defense. Dysert also didn't stand out when he faced tougher competition. Glennon's decision-making needs serious improvement. He routinely made throws that were extremely questionable.

Jones' reputation for shoddy decision-making is well known. If he was in Norman, and playing with a lead, he was solid. But against good defenses, Jones' decision-making was consistently bad.

Recap: Barkley and Wilson are both intelligent signal-callers who already have a good basis of knowledge of an NFL offense. Smith is known around West Virginia as a dedicated patron of the film room. He will need time to learn an NFL offense, but he studies hard, so the habits are there for him to be a smart quarterback.

Nassib is intelligent and that was noticed by scouts at the Senior Bowl. Glennon isn't significantly behind Nassib or Smith. Glennon is said to be smart enough.

Jones is experienced and knows what to do, but it seems to be forgotten during the games in high-pressure situations. Manuel ran a very basic offense in college and will need a lot of classroom development in the NFL.

Recap: Manuel and Smith are truly mobile quarterbacks with the ability to make big plays on the ground. Offensive coordinators will be able to use some of the en-vogue read-option plays that took the NFL by storm in 2012.

Wilson moves well and can pick up yards on the ground. He has good scrambling ability to buy time and throw on the run. Dysert ran the ball well in college, but he won't be as effective at picking up yards in the NFL. Both should have the mobility to help avoid the pass rush.

Nassib and Barkley can move around some. They can each buy some time, but neither is a threat to run with the ball.

Glennon and Jones are pretty much statues in the pocket. Both got hit a lot when going against good pass rushes.

Recap: Smith had great ball security in college. The 3-year starter threw just 20 interceptions over three seasons with his highest totals being seven per year as a sophomore and junior. He has a real ability to avoid throwing interceptions and that sets him apart from the other signal-callers.

Nassib and Dysert had good ball security as well; they're pretty even. Barkley and Wilson would've ranked higher last year before they significantly increased their turnovers as seniors.

Manuel's decision-making was generally okay against weak teams, but it was pretty ugly against good defenses. The regular-season finale against Florida was an example.

Glennon can throw picks in bunches. The senior threw multiple interceptions in five games in 2012, including four in the season opener and three in the season finale. He must get better at protecting the football in the NFL.

When the pressure amps up, Jones' ball security is horrible. He was prone to poorly timed interceptions and fumbles. It was too much of a trend for it not to be a huge red flag entering the NFL.

Recap: The only quarterback with bad intangibles is Jones. He isn't a bad teammate, but he rarely ever performed well in crunch time or elevated his play when his team needed it. Jones completely lacks the "it" factor. Dysert didn't elevate against better competition either.

Smith was bipolar in college. There were times when he sulked on the sideline and acted extremely immature. At the same time, former teammates have told WalterFootball.com that he has leadership skills, works hard and is well-liked in the locker room. It seems to be a mixed bag with Smith's intangibles.

Glennon, Wilson, Manuel and Nassib are all pretty equal. Each has a reputation as a good teammate who embrace a leadership role. All of them are said to have good work ethics. They had some clutch second-half performances in their careers and some games where they fell flat.

Barkley is known to be a good guy off the field who represents his team well. He is also known as a positive presence in the locker room. Barkley tries to rally his team on the sidelines. His intangibles are perhaps his best asset.

I agree with most of that article. I think all of this year's QB class is nestled somewhere at the back of last year's QB class, but I agree with SNR about Geno Smith & I think Tyler Wilson is about head to head with Tannehill when he was in the draft last season. They are different players, but similar in a lot of ways.

This is a good example of why scouting sucks. Way too much revisionist history. Robert Griffin looked like a really good prospect coming out, but he wasn't without flaws. Smith probably would be behind Griffin, but he'd be significantly ahead of Tannehill and pretty close to RGIII. What scouts and fans also forget is how aberrational last year's QBs were. Because there isn't a once-every-fifteen-years prospect at QB (who was also the third best rookie QB last year, FWIW), the assumption is to move to the exact end of the spectrum. Oh, no Luck or RGIII? Well then EVERYONE must suck. The ability to see things in a continuum is wholly absent.

Pundits do the same thing when re-evaluating draft classes. If a guy underperforms, they say that he was actually a second rounder who was reached for, when the reality is that maybe one scout out of twenty had such an opinion.

This is a good example of why scouting sucks. Way too much revisionist history. Robert Griffin looked like a really good prospect coming out, but he wasn't without flaws. Smith probably would be behind Griffin, but he'd be significantly ahead of Tannehill and pretty close to RGIII. What scouts and fans also forget is how aberrational last year's QBs were. Because there isn't a once-every-fifteen-years prospect at QB (who was also the third best rookie QB last year, FWIW), the assumption is to move to the exact end of the spectrum. Oh, no Luck or RGIII? Well then EVERYONE must suck. The ability to see things in a continuum is wholly absent.

Pundits do the same thing when re-evaluating draft classes. If a guy underperforms, they say that he was actually a second rounder who was reached for, when the reality is that maybe one scout out of twenty had such an opinion.

**** idiots. The lot of them.

You stated a lot more eloquently than I ever could. I've stated over and over again, just because our QB choices might not be the "once a generation" prospect, that doesn't mean you shouldn't make the pick. If whoever we choose turns out to be a Drew Bledsoe, Kerry Collins or Steve McNair, it's still a good and valuable pick.

__________________
Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning:

Matt once made a very nice play in Seattle where he spun away from a pass rusher and hit Bowe off his back foot for a first down.

How in the **** is Ryan Tannehill a better prospect than Matt Barkley, when Barkley was rated higher than that turd? Shit he was at the same grade as RGIII. I swear all of these ****ing mock drafters have went retarded.

How in the **** is Ryan Tannehill a better prospect than Matt Barkley, when Barkley was rated higher than that turd? Shit he was at the same grade as RGIII. I swear all of these ****ing mock drafters have went retarded.

I wonder if Barkley is going to get that big chip on his sholder that Aaron Rogers has. He'll be setting out to prove alot of people wrong.

How in the **** is Ryan Tannehill a better prospect than Matt Barkley, when Barkley was rated higher than that turd? Shit he was at the same grade as RGIII. I swear all of these ****ing mock drafters have went retarded.

Yeah. I remember before he decided to go back to USC, he and Luck were together, right at the top.

Yeah. I remember before he decided to go back to USC, he and Luck were together, right at the top.

And he had almost the same season this year as he did last. Trouble was he didn't go 14-0 like the media thought and he got hurt. Thus he must totally suck. Yet last year he was right with Andrew Luck, everybody's love child for quarterback. I swear the media and these draft mockers are just ****ing retards.

This is a good example of why scouting sucks. Way too much revisionist history. Robert Griffin looked like a really good prospect coming out, but he wasn't without flaws. Smith probably would be behind Griffin, but he'd be significantly ahead of Tannehill and pretty close to RGIII. What scouts and fans also forget is how aberrational last year's QBs were. Because there isn't a once-every-fifteen-years prospect at QB (who was also the third best rookie QB last year, FWIW), the assumption is to move to the exact end of the spectrum. Oh, no Luck or RGIII? Well then EVERYONE must suck. The ability to see things in a continuum is wholly absent.

Pundits do the same thing when re-evaluating draft classes. If a guy underperforms, they say that he was actually a second rounder who was reached for, when the reality is that maybe one scout out of twenty had such an opinion.